To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Most recent common ancestor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Genetic genealogy
Related topics

In biology and genealogy, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA, also last common ancestor LCA, or concestor[1]) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in a group are directly descended. The term is also used in reference to the ancestry of groups of genes (haplotypes) rather than organisms.

The MRCA of a set of individuals can sometimes be determined by referring to an established pedigree. However, in general, it is impossible to identify the exact MRCA of a large set of individuals, but an estimate of the time at which the MRCA lived can often be given. Such time to MRCA (TMRCA) estimates can be given based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy, or by reference to a non-genetic, mathematical model or computer simulation.

In organisms using sexual reproduction, the matrilinear MRCA and patrilinear MRCA are the MRCAs of a given population considering only matrilineal and patrilineal descent, respectively. The MRCA of a population by definition cannot be older than either its matrilinear or its patrilinear MRCA. In the case of Homo sapiens, the matrilinear and patrilinear MRCA are also known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA) and "Y-chromosomal Adam" (Y-MRCA) respectively.

The age of the human MRCA is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of both Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA, estimated at around 200,000 years, and it may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.[2]

The Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) is the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth, estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (in the Paleoarchean).[3]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    2 497 918
    1 508
    169 156
    1 428 740
    34 472
  • Are We All Related?
  • TMRCA: DNA and the 4th Dimension
  • Most MYSTERIOUS Extinct Human Species!
  • Human Evolution: Crash Course Big History #6
  • Understanding Humanity Through Evolution: Richard Dawkins Speech (2004)


This is you. And these are your ancestors, a huge pyramid stretching into the past and balancing right on your head. How many ancestors do you have? Well, you have two parents. Four grandparents. And eight great-grandparents. Four generations back, your direct ancestors total 30. If we continue down this line, doubling every step, just 40 generations ago we’d find a trillion ancestors, all living *at the same time*. Which is… ridiculous. That’s not only more people than have ever been alive, it’s more stars than are in the Milky Way. Since our species came on the scene 200,000 years ago, there’ve been maybe 7 or 8 *thousand* generations of humans leading up to… you. So where are all your missing ancestors? Clearly, there’s been some inbreeding. [OPEN] We’re not talking banjo-playing, King-of-Spain, Cersei-Jamie inbreeding, but every family tree inevitably grows forks. Before Tinder, choices for mates were often limited to as far as you could walk. Even people like Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein married their first cousins. Because so many people with shared ancestors have reproduced, our number of actual ancestors is much smaller than what simple math tells us. If we replace that with fancy math, factoring in how people moved and lived and paired up… life expectancy, trade, geography, Genghis Khan… we find something interesting: every human alive today shares a common ancestor in their family tree, and this person lived only around 3,000 years ago. That’s right, next time you get in a fight with a stranger on the internet, just remember that you share the same great great great great great (fast foward) great grandfather or grandmother. But we don’t know who that person was. The math tells us they must have existed, but they didn’t leave fossils or artifacts. Or like, a note or something. Though, writing birthday cards for each of their 7.4 Billion great great great great great (fast forward) great grandchildren would have been nice gesture. But we all carry a record of our ancestors in our genes. Because DNA is copied over and over, every so often a mistake is written in. You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it’s doesn't come out as sharp? Like that, but since most of our DNA can be changed without affecting how things work, many of these mutations slip through to the next generation. These genetic changes accumulate at a steady rate through time, so scientists can read them like a molecular clock, and estimate how much time has passed. And which changes individuals share tell us how closely or distantly related they are. Humans *seem* really different, but on a DNA level we’re remarkably similar. Groups of chimps in Central Africa, living right next to each other, show more genetic variation than we find in the entire human population. This genetic similarity tells us that our species is new, in the big scheme of things, and that at one point our population was small, maybe as few as 10,000 of us. To put that in perspective, that’s only a third of your average Bruce Springsteen crowd. Sorry Boss. Today, any two humans only differ by about 1 out of 1000 DNA base pairs. But our genome is so big, that’s still millions of single letter differences, or SNPs, for “single nucleotide polymorphism”. We tend to see combinations of these changes, chunks of SNPs, associated with different geographic locations. Companies that test your DNA ancestry read thousands of these single letter changes in your genome, to make a sort of signature of your unique genetic variation. Then they compare your signature to thousands of reference individuals from various parts of the world, and do a bunch of fancy math to see which parts of your genome most likely came from certain geographic areas. My genetic results: Pretty much look like this. My ancNewsprestors, on both sides of my family, are from Northern Europe and Scandinavia, which explains my last name, why I’m tall, why I don’t tan, and also why I carry more Neanderthal DNA than 2/3rds of people. Confused why I have Neanderthal DNA? You should watch our last video. I didn’t find any surprises, but many people learn about ancestry they didn’t know they had. Where we come from isn’t always obvious on the outside, but DNA doesn’t lie. Before, using math, we identified an ancestor, not too long ago, that’s related to all of us. But that person’s genetic influence has been shuffled so much it’s invisible in our DNA today. Is there someone whose genes have been passed on, unbroken, to today? Some leftover fingerprint from the mother of everyone alive? There is. You have a 47th chromosome. It lives in mitochondria, the POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL! – so we’re doing that again? Ok–mitochondria used to be free-swimming. They have their own genetic material. Unlike your other 46 chromosomes, there’s no shuffling when it’s passed between generations. What’s more, all your mitochondria came from your mother’s egg, not your father’s sperm. They trace an unbroken line of ancestors stretching back through every female in your family tree. By comparing the changes that have accumulated over the millennia, we find the most ancient human mitochondrial DNA comes from Africa, where our species originated. We can even trace it back to one woman, about 150,000 years ago. Other Homo sapiens females lived alongside her, but only her lineage lives on today, all other Homo sapiens lineages are extinct. This is mitochondrial Eve. And every single one of us, descend from her. In the truest sense, we really are family. Even if we’re just hundredth cousins or something. But our ancestry isn’t just branches stretching into the past, it’s also a tree that extends into the future. Today we have more power to mold that future, down to the genetic level, than we’ve ever had before. So what might our species’ future look like? Next time. Stay curious. This video is part of a special series we’re doing about the story of our species: Where we came from, how we’re all connected, and where we’re going. If you haven’t already, check out part 1 and 2 to trace the fossils in our family tree and learn why we’re the only humans left. And be sure to subscribe so you don’t miss any of our videos.


MRCA of different species

Euryarchaeota Nanoarchaeota Crenarchaeota Protozoa Algae Plantae Slime molds Animal Fungus Gram-positive bacteria Chlamydiae Chloroflexi Actinobacteria Planctomycetes Spirochaetes Fusobacteria Cyanobacteria Thermophiles Acidobacteria Proteobacteria
Evolutionary tree showing the divergence of modern species from the last universal ancestor in the center.[4] The three domains are colored, with bacteria blue, archaea green, and eukaryotes red.

The project of a complete description of the phylogeny of biological species is dubbed the "Tree of Life". This involves time estimates of all known speciation events; for example, the MRCA of all Carnivora (i.e. the MRCA of "cats and dogs") is estimated to have lived of the order of 42 million years ago (Miacidae).[5]

The concept of the last common ancestor from the perspective of human evolution is described for a popular audience in The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins (2004). Dawkins lists "concestors" of the human lineage in order of increasing age, including hominin (human-chimpanzee), hominine (human-gorilla), hominid (human-orangutan), hominoid (human-gibbon), and so on in 39 stages in total, down to the last universal ancestor (human-bacteriae).

MRCA of a population identified by a single genetic marker

It is also possible to consider the ancestry of individual genes (or groups of genes, haplotypes) instead of an organism as a whole. Coalescent theory describes a stochastic model of how the ancestry of such genetic markers maps to the history of a population.

Unlike organisms, a gene is passed down from a generation of organisms to the next generation either as perfect replicas of itself or as slightly mutated descendant genes. While organisms have ancestry graphs and progeny graphs via sexual reproduction, a gene has a single chain of ancestors and a tree of descendants. An organism produced by sexual cross-fertilization (allogamy) has at least two ancestors (its immediate parents), but a gene always has one ancestor per generation.

Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCA

 Through random drift or selection, lineage will trace back to a single person. In this example over 5 generations, the colors represent extinct matrilineal lines and black the matrilineal line descended from the mt-MRCA.
Through random drift or selection, lineage will trace back to a single person. In this example over 5 generations, the colors represent extinct matrilineal lines and black the matrilineal line descended from the mt-MRCA.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is nearly immune to sexual mixing, unlike the nuclear DNA whose chromosomes are shuffled and recombined in Mendelian inheritance. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, can be used to trace matrilineal inheritance and to find the Mitochondrial Eve (also known as the African Eve), the most recent common ancestor of all humans via the mitochondrial DNA pathway.

Likewise, Y chromosome is present as a single sex chromosome in the male individual and is passed on to male descendants without recombination. It can be used to trace patrilineal inheritance and to find the Y-chromosomal Adam, the most recent common ancestor of all humans via the Y-DNA pathway.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam have been established by researchers using genealogical DNA tests. Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 200,000 years ago. A paper published in March 2013 determined that, with 95% confidence and that provided there are no systematic errors in the study's data, Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago.[6][7]

The MRCA of humans alive today would, therefore, need to have lived more recently than either.[8][9]

It is more complicated to infer human ancestry via autosomal chromosomes. Although an autosomal chromosome contains genes that are passed down from parents to children via independent assortment from only one of the two parents, genetic recombination (chromosomal crossover) mixes genes from non-sister chromatids from both parents during meiosis, thus changing the genetic composition of the chromosome.

Time to MRCA estimates

Different types of MRCAs are estimated to have lived at different times in the past. These time to MRCA (TMRCA) estimates are also computed differently depending on the type of MRCA being considered. Patrilineal and matrilineal MRCAs (Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam) are traced by single gene markers, thus their TMRCA are computed based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy. Time to genealogical MRCA of all living humans is computed based on non-genetic, mathematical models and computer simulations.

Since Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam are traced by single genes via a single ancestral parent line, the time to these genetic MRCAs will necessarily be greater than that for the genealogical MRCA. This is because single genes will coalesce more slowly than tracing of conventional human genealogy via both parents. The latter considers only individual humans, without taking into account whether any gene from the computed MRCA actually survives in every single person in the current population.[10]

TMRCA via genetic markers

Mitochondrial DNA can be used to trace the ancestry of a set of populations. In this case, populations are defined by the accumulation of mutations on the mtDNA, and special trees are created for the mutations and the order in which they occurred in each population. The tree is formed through the testing of a large number of individuals all over the world for the presence or lack of a certain set of mutations. Once this is done it is possible to determine how many mutations separate one population from another. The number of mutations, together with estimated mutation rate of the mtDNA in the regions tested, allows scientists to determine the approximate time to MRCA (TMRCA) which indicates time passed since the populations last shared the same set of mutations or belonged to the same haplogroup.

In the case of Y-Chromosomal DNA, TMRCA is arrived at in a different way. Y-DNA haplogroups are defined by single-nucleotide polymorphism in various regions of the Y-DNA. The time to MRCA within a haplogroup is defined by the accumulation of mutations in STR sequences of the Y-Chromosome of that haplogroup only. Y-DNA network analysis of Y-STR haplotypes showing a non-star cluster indicates Y-STR variability due to multiple founding individuals. Analysis yielding a star cluster can be regarded as representing a population descended from a single ancestor. In this case the variability of the Y-STR sequence, also called the microsatellite variation, can be regarded as a measure of the time passed since the ancestor founded this particular population. The descendants of Genghis Khan or one of his ancestors represents a famous star cluster that can be dated back to the time of Genghis Khan.[11]

TMRCA calculations are considered critical evidence when attempting to determine migration dates of various populations as they spread around the world. For example, if a mutation is deemed to have occurred 30,000 years ago, then this mutation should be found amongst all populations that diverged after this date. If archeological evidence indicates cultural spread and formation of regionally isolated populations then this must be reflected in the isolation of subsequent genetic mutations in this region. If genetic divergence and regional divergence coincide it can be concluded that the observed divergence is due to migration as evidenced by the archaeological record. However, if the date of genetic divergence occurs at a different time than the archaeological record, then scientists will have to look at alternate archaeological evidence to explain the genetic divergence. The issue is best illustrated in the debate surrounding the demic diffusion versus cultural diffusion during the European Neolithic.[12]

TMRCA of all living humans

The age of the MRCA of all living humans is unknown. It is necessarily younger than the age of either the matrilinear or the patrilinear MRCA, both of which have an estimated age of between roughly 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.[13] Due to pervasive contact between the formerly separated human populations since the Age of Discovery, the human MRCA may be as recent as some 3,000 years ago.[14]

Note that the age of the MRCA of a population does not correspond to a population bottleneck, let alone a "first couple". It rather reflects the presence of a single individual with high reproductive success in the past, whose genetic contribution has become pervasive throughout the population over time. E.g. it is estimated that the MRCA of the populations native to Europe, or even much of Eurasia, is medieval, more specifically, due to the Mongol invasions in the 13th century.[15]

It is also incorrect to assume that the MRCA passed all, or indeed any, genetic information to every living person. Through sexual reproduction, an ancestor passes half of his or her genes to each descendant in the next generation; after more than 32 generations the contribution of a single ancestor would be on the order of 2−32, a number proportional to less than a single basepair within the human genome.[16][17]

Identical ancestors point

The MRCA is the most recent common ancestor shared by all individuals in the population under consideration. This MRCA may well have contemporaries who are also ancestral to some but not all of the extant population. The identical ancestors point is a point in the past more remote than the MRCA at which time there are no longer organisms which are ancestral to some but not all of the modern population. Due to pedigree collapse, modern individuals may still exhibit clustering, due to vastly different contributions from each of ancestral population .[17]

See also


  1. ^ MRCA is now more frequently for common ancestors of subgroups within a species, and LCA for the common ancestor between two species.[citation needed] The term "concestor" (coined by Nicky Warren) is used by Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor's Tale (2004).
  2. ^ Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–66. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R. PMID 15457259. doi:10.1038/nature02842.  calculate an age of 2,000 to 4,000 years based on a non-genetic, mathematical model that assumes random mating although it has taken into account important aspects of human population substructure such as assortative mating and historical geographical constraints on interbreeding. This range is consistent with the age of 3,100 years calculated for the MRCA of the JC virus, an ubiquitous human polyomavirus usually transmitted from parents to children by L. A. Shackelton et al., "JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations" Journal of Virology, Vol. 80, No. 20 (Oct. 2006), doi:10.1128/JVI.00441-06.
  3. ^ Doolittle WF (February 2000). "Uprooting the tree of life". Scientific American. 282 (2): 90–95. PMID 10710791. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90. . Glansdorff N, Xu Y, Labedan B (2008). "The last universal common ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner". Biology Direct. 3: 29. PMC 2478661Freely accessible. PMID 18613974. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-3-29. . The composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA. Wade, Nicholas (25 July 2016). "Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2016. 
  4. ^ Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, von Mering C, Creevey CJ, Snel B, Bork P; Doerks; von Mering; Creevey; Snel; Bork (2006). "Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life". Science. 311 (5765): 1283–87. Bibcode:2006Sci...311.1283C. PMID 16513982. doi:10.1126/science.1123061. 
  5. ^ Eizirik, E.; Murphy, W.J.; Koepfli, K.P.; Johnson, W.E.; Dragoo, J.W.; O'Brien, S.J. (2010). "Pattern and timing of the diversification of the mammalian order Carnivora inferred from multiple nuclear gene sequences". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 56: 49–63. PMID 20138220. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.033. 
  6. ^ Mendez, Fernando; Krahn, Thomas; Schrack, Bonnie; Krahn, Astrid-Maria; Veeramah, Krishna; Woerner, August; Fomine, Forka Leypey Mathew; Bradman, Neil; Thomas, Mark; Karafet, Tatiana M.; Hammer, Michael F. (7 March 2013). "An African American paternal lineage adds an extremely ancient root to the human Y chromosome phylogenetic tree" (PDF). American Journal of Human Genetics. 92 (3): 454–59. PMC 3591855Freely accessible. PMID 23453668. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.02.002.  (primary source)
  7. ^ Barrass, Colin (6 March 2013). "The father of all men is 340,000 years old". New Scientist. Retrieved 13 March 2013. 
  8. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2004). The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-00583-8. 
  9. ^ Notions such as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam yield common ancestors that are more ancient than for all living humans (Hartwell 2004:539).
  10. ^ Chang, Joseph T.; Donnelly, Peter; Wiuf, Carsten; Hein, Jotun; Slatkin, Montgomery; Ewens, W. J.; Kingman, J. F. C. (1999). "Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals" (PDF). Advances in Applied Probability. 31 (4): 1002–26, discussion and author's reply, 1027–38. doi:10.1239/aap/1029955256. Retrieved 2008-01-29. 
  11. ^ Tatiana Zerjal (2003), The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols,
  12. ^ Morelli L, Contu D, Santoni F, Whalen MB, Francalacci P; Contu; Santoni; Whalen; Francalacci; Cucca; et al. (2010). Lalueza-Fox, Carles, ed. "A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture". PLoS ONE. 5 (4): e10419. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510419M. PMC 2861676Freely accessible. PMID 20454687. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010419. 
  13. ^ Poznik GD, Henn BM, Yee MC, Sliwerska E, Euskirchen GM, Lin AA, Snyder M, Quintana-Murci L, Kidd JM, Underhill PA, Bustamante CD (August 2013). "Sequencing Y chromosomes resolves discrepancy in time to common ancestor of males versus females". Science. 341 (6145): 562–65. doi:10.1126/science.1237619. PMID 23908239.
  14. ^ Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–66. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R. PMID 15457259. doi:10.1038/nature02842.  calcuulate an age of 2,000 to 4,000 years based on a non-genetic, mathematical model that assumes random mating although it has taken into account important aspects of human population substructure such as assortative mating and historical geographical constraints on interbreeding. This range is consistent with the age of 3,100 years calculated for the MRCA of the JC virus, an ubiquitous human polyomavirus usually transmitted from parents to children by L. A. Shackelton et al., "JC Virus Evolution and Its Association with Human Populations" Journal of Virology, Vol. 80, No. 20 (Oct. 2006), doi:10.1128/JVI.00441-06.
  15. ^ Zerjal et al., The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols, American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003. See also descent from Genghis Khan.
  16. ^ Zhaxybayeva, Olga; Lapierre, Pascal; Gogarten, J. Peter (May 2004). "Genome mosaicism and organismal lineages" (PDF). Trends in Genetics. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Connecticut: Elsevier. 20 (5): 254–60. PMID 15109780. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2004.03.009. Retrieved 2009-02-19. The Ship of Theseus paradox […] is frequently invoked to illustrate this point […]. Even moderate levels of gene transfer will make it impossible to reconstruct the genomes of early ancestors; … 
  17. ^ a b Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT; Olson; Chang (September 2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans" (PDF). Nature. 431 (7008): 562–66. Bibcode:2004Natur.431..562R. PMID 15457259. doi:10.1038/nature02842. 

Further reading

This page was last edited on 9 October 2017, at 20:58.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.